|
Grex > Agora35 > #124: Win the electoral college but lose the popular vote? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 409 responses total. |
gelinas
|
|
response 338 of 409:
| 
Dec 7 21:22 UTC 2000 |
Nah; the legislature will appoint them for Gore. ;)
|
gull
|
|
response 339 of 409:
|
Dec 7 22:43 UTC 2000 |
At this point we might as well flip a coin, because the whole process has
been corrupted anyway. We'll never know how people *really* voted, because
it's now impossible to find out. Chads have probably fallen out of the
ballots from repeated handling. Legal challenges have muddled the data.
And Republican mouthpieces are claiming that Democratic workers have been
punching out extra holes to invalidate ballots that were Bush votes. This
has been really eye opening; I never realized until now just how much
questionable activity went on behind the scenes in elections. Is any
election actually counted fairly? I'm starting to doubt it.
|
scott
|
|
response 340 of 409:
|
Dec 7 23:38 UTC 2000 |
Fairly enough, if there's a decent split instead ofa close race. When it
gets close then problems start coming out of the woodwork.
But the Republicans are really looking sleazy... all those "protesters" who
where swarming around the Dade County situation and frightening the canvassing
board? Most of them were Republican House (US) staffers, flown down to
Florida to act as a mob.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 341 of 409:
|
Dec 8 00:27 UTC 2000 |
Most?
|
danr
|
|
response 342 of 409:
|
Dec 8 18:15 UTC 2000 |
They were probably able to dig up one or two locals to join in.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 343 of 409:
|
Dec 8 18:35 UTC 2000 |
Talk about burning your bridges. The Republicans are going to have a lot of
trouble the next time they are on the down side of an election and want a
recount. EVERYTHING they've said this time will be used against them. In
spades.
|
mdw
|
|
response 344 of 409:
|
Dec 8 20:10 UTC 2000 |
I'd like to think they'd care about that. The reality, though, is that
this fits in very well with Republican philosophy. They are very
gung-ho on "business", trickle-down economics, and "leadership".
Another way to put this is that they're into elitism - there are the
people in charge "at the top", who can be automatically trusted (as long
as they're "one of us"), and there are the unwashed masses, who
definitely can't be trusted (because they're a bunch of "them" in
there.) What the courts have said in these various cases is basically
that yes, the people on top actually do have quite a bit of latitude in
arranging for an unfair vote process, and that even if they're caught,
as long as they don't bend the rules too badly, they can get away with
it scott-free.
The thing the Republicans have going for them is greater consistency of
purpose, and a better memory for what they do and don't want. In an
unfair contest, this gives them a special edge - because while the rest
of us are still worried about "what is fair", they can go right ahead
and complain about how unfair it is to count dimpled chad, without any
concern about fairness. It's easy to do that, when your sense of
purpose is stronger than your sense of fairness.
|
senna
|
|
response 345 of 409:
|
Dec 9 05:42 UTC 2000 |
What an interesting perspective.
|
aruba
|
|
response 346 of 409:
|
Dec 9 14:12 UTC 2000 |
I liked #344 too.
|
aaron
|
|
response 347 of 409:
|
Dec 9 20:51 UTC 2000 |
Create your own election adventure.
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/08/choice/index.html
|
krj
|
|
response 348 of 409:
|
Dec 10 00:36 UTC 2000 |
The fix is in; apparently the US Republican Supreme Court intends to void the
contest provisions of Florida law. The principles of federalism and
judicial restraint must be scrapped if they are in the way of ramming
Bush into office.
Scalia complains that Bush's legitimacy will be undermined if the
Florida counts show that Gore is ahead when someone finally rams
Bush into office. But the ballots will be studied endlessly by the
press under the FOIA laws, unless Scalia intends to order that the
evidence be destroyed. The conservative group Judicial Watch had
already been given access, and their examination of the ballots was
cut short when they were trucked to Talahassee.
|
jep
|
|
response 349 of 409:
|
Dec 11 18:03 UTC 2000 |
Pretty close to every one of us who has responded has expressed opinions
along the political lines on which we voted. It's pretty interesting
how strongly allied we tend to be with our political parties, and how
loyal we are to the candidates we favor.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 350 of 409:
|
Dec 11 18:06 UTC 2000 |
What's the alternative?
|
jep
|
|
response 351 of 409:
|
Dec 11 19:02 UTC 2000 |
Try to think about the issues and what's fair and right, the way we
expect and hope the judiciary branch to do.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 352 of 409:
|
Dec 11 20:25 UTC 2000 |
It does happen that what *I* think is fair and right agrees with my
liberal perspective. I suspect that is true for those with an illiberal
perspective. So, I still don't understand what you think those involved
should do other than what they are doing. Do you really expect any
of the Republicans (Democrats) to flip perspectives just because it
has come down to the crunch?
|
scg
|
|
response 353 of 409:
|
Dec 11 21:56 UTC 2000 |
I suppose the interesting question is how many of us would change our views
on vote counting if it were Gore, rather than Bush, who was ahead in the
current count.
|
mdw
|
|
response 354 of 409:
|
Dec 11 22:02 UTC 2000 |
Hey, I think Gore is *way* far from ideal. In some ways, I think he's
more dangerous, because he's smart.
I think the Bush supporters should have been much more keen on having
the votes counted by hand - there's every chance they could have run
even with a hand-count, and now, as matters stand, with the large cloud
of dust they've managed to raise, it may be that nobody will ever really
believe Bush won fair & square.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 355 of 409:
|
Dec 12 02:22 UTC 2000 |
What was that quote I heard on television this weekend? "Is she like that
because she's /x/, or is she /x/ because she's like that?"
I'm fairly certain that if Bush were calling for a full recount and Gore were
stalling, I'd be backing Bush.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 356 of 409:
|
Dec 12 05:07 UTC 2000 |
I've decided that the Bush argument that manual recounting of undercounted
ballots is bad because there are not uniform standards among the counties -
is specious. If there had been a request for just one county's undercount to
be counted manually, the argument could not be used, so the recount would
have proceeded and the results would have been accepted. But if the
manual recount of one country is acceptable, then the recount of all the
counties must be also, as *each* county is subject to its own standards.
That is, the recounting standards of a single county are themselves "not
standard", but yet would be acceptable.
|
jep
|
|
response 357 of 409:
|
Dec 12 19:22 UTC 2000 |
The uniformity of the split, with *all* of the Gore supporters here on
Grex thinking Gore's arguments are better, and *all* of the Bush
supporters thinking Bush's arguments are better, leads me to believe our
support is not based on what is fair and right, but rather, what outcome
we would rather have. I don't think any but the blindest of partisans
could seriously contend that the other side (either "other side") has
nothing to support it's arguments.
In response to #352, yes, I do expect serious people to try to
understand the viewpoint of the opposite side, and to not go around
saying things like "If *my* guy doesn't win the election, it's proof of
corruption" and other unintelligent things like that.
|
n8nxf
|
|
response 358 of 409:
|
Dec 12 20:02 UTC 2000 |
I can't believe that they were doing manual counts without following a
standard! What a bunch of bloomin idiots. (Or, is there a reason for
starching this out?)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 359 of 409:
|
Dec 12 20:34 UTC 2000 |
What if just one (1) county was at issue, and they did the manual recount
of undercounted votes in accord with procedures adopted by the canvassing
board. Would that be OK? If that is OK, then that should apply to
all the counties doing manual recounts, each in their own way. Since *each*
recount would be done by acceptable procedures for that county, every
county will be recounted be acceptable procedures. There is no logical
reason to have the procedures identical for all the counties, if each
recount is acceptable on its own. This is a false issue invented by
the Bush camp to prevent recounts of all counties as called for by the
Florida supreme court.
The reason for starching it out, of course, is to keep everything in
good shape.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 360 of 409:
|
Dec 12 22:31 UTC 2000 |
Gore losing this election is NOT proof of corruption or any other malfeasance.
I believe Ms. Harris' decision to reject the manual recounts, out of hand,
*was* misfeasance. Culpable misfeasance, even. I think the Bush's campaign
arguments about the lack of 'standards' to be smoke screen. (I don't credit
Bush with the ability to come up with any such arguments.) I think we will
get what we deserve with the next Bush Administration.
|
aaron
|
|
response 361 of 409:
|
Dec 13 01:16 UTC 2000 |
re #357: Perhaps you could do me the favor of explaining what you believe
"Gore's arguments" to be, and what you believe "Bush's arguments"
to be, as that will help me test your thesis.
|
aaron
|
|
response 362 of 409:
|
Dec 13 03:08 UTC 2000 |
The Supreme Court has reversed the Florida Supreme Court, 5:4. Details
are just now being released.
|